Property:Acceptance Indicators
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type text.
A
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2017]]. +
The publication of [[Patton (2019)]] is and indication of the acceptance of the question. +
This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2017]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
The question was raised by Barseghyan in his original formulation of scientonomy [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 99-109]], although he was unable to supply a normative answer. +
The theory was introduced by Barseghyan in 'The Laws of Scientific Change' [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 109-113]] and became 'de facto' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change. +
The community has accepted an answer to this question, Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant facts Barseghyan 2015, and this implies the acceptance of the legitimacy of the question itself. +
The law became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
The question of Associations of Acceptance Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Acceptance Criteria]]. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)]]. +
The question of Associations of Accidental Group became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Accidental Group]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
The question of Associations of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Authority Delegation]]. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled [[Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)|Authority Delegation]] is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016) +
The question of Associations of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Community]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
The question of Associations of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility Criteria]]. +
The question of Associations of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility]]. The term became accepted with the acceptance of the whole [[Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
The question of Associations of Core Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Core Question]]. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology'']] that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community. +
The question of Associations of Core Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Core Theory]]. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology'']] that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community. +
The question of Associations of Definition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Definition]]. The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's [[Barseghyan (2018)|''Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change'']]. +
The question of Associations of Delineating Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Delineating Theory]]. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology'']] that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community. +
